Steven Colloton On Abortion

Steven Colloton Has A History Of Ruling To Restrict Reproductive Freedoms

Colloton Voted To Strike Down The Affordable Care Act’s Contraceptive Mandate, Allowing Religious Exemptions For Employers 

2015: Colloton Voted To Strike Down The Affordable Care Act’s Contraceptive Mandate In Dordt College v. Burwell And Sharpe Holdings v. HHS

2015: Colloton Voted To Strike Down The Affordable Care Act’s Contraceptive Mandate. According to the Washington Times, “In a pair of opinions, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit sided with religious universities and ministries that object to insuring contraceptives they equate with abortion and feel that opt-out routes provided by the Department of Health and Human Services keep them complicit in sin. The rulings upheld a lower court’s finding and marked a significant break from other circuit rulings that said HHS’s efforts to accommodate the groups were sufficient.” [Washington Times, 9/17/15]

Colloton Ruled That Requiring Employers To Notify The Insurer Or The Government In Order To Opt-Out Of Covering Contraceptives Was “A Burden Too Heavy To Bear.” According to the Washington Times, “Under HHS rules, religious employers who object to covering birth control must notify an insurer, plan administrator or the government in writing so that a third party can manage and pay for the coverage. ‘If one equates the self-certification process with, say, that of obtaining a parade permit, then indeed the burden might well be considered light. But if one sincerely believes that completing [the opt-out form] or HHS Notice will result in conscience-violating consequences, what some might consider an otherwise neutral act is a burden too heavy to bear,’ wrote Judge Roger L. Wollman, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, joined by judges William D. Benton and Steven M. Colloton, both appointees of President George W. Bush.” [Washington Times, 9/17/15]

The Supreme Court Vacated The Rulings In Seven Challenges To The ACA Contraceptive Mandate Including Dordt College v. Burwell And Sharpe Holdings v. HHS 

All Other Appeals Courts Upheld The ACA’s Contraceptive Coverage Rules, Only The Eighth Circuit Ruled The Other Way. According to the Washington Post, “A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in St. Louis said forcing two Missouri organizations to offer contraceptive coverage to employees — even indirectly — would violate the groups’ religious freedoms. The decision was at odds with that of every other appeals court that has considered the issue. Those courts have said the government’s compromise was adequate.” [Washington Post, 9/17/15]

The Supreme Court Vacated The Rulings In Challenges To The ACA Contraceptive Mandate And Returned The Cases To The Lower Courts. According to the New York Times, “The Supreme Court, in an unsigned unanimous opinion, announced on Monday that it would not rule in a major case on access to contraception, and instructed lower courts to consider whether a compromise was possible. The opinion is the latest indication that the Supreme Court, which currently has eight members, is exploring every avenue to avoid 4-to-4 deadlocks, even if it does not decide the question the justices have agreed to address.” [New York Times, 5/17/16]

Colloton Voted To Reinstate A Law That Required Abortion Clinics To Tell Patients That Abortions “Terminate The Life” Of An “Unborn Human Being”

2005: South Dakota Enacted House Bill 1166 Which Would Require Patients Seeking Abortions To Provide Written, Informed Consent To Obtain The Procedure

2005: South Dakota Enacted House Bill 1166 Which Would Require Patients Seeking Abortions To Provide Written, Informed Consent To Obtain The Procedure. According to the South Dakota legislature, “No abortion may be performed unless the physician first obtains a voluntary and informed written consent of the pregnant woman upon whom the physician intends to perform the abortion, unless the physician determines that obtaining an informed consent is impossible due to a medical emergency and further determines that delaying in performing the procedure until an informed consent can be obtained from the pregnant woman or her next of kin in accordance with chapter 34-12C is impossible due to the medical emergency, which determinations shall then be documented in the medical records of the patient.” [S.D. Codified Laws. §34-23A-10.2, accessed 6/24/24]

House Bill 1166 Required Physicians To Tell Patients Seeking An Abortion That An Abortion Will “Terminate The Life Of A Whole, Separate, Unique, Living Human Being” With Whom The Patient Has “An Existing Relationship.” According to the South Dakota legislature, “A consent to an abortion is not voluntary and informed, unless, in addition to any other information that must be disclosed under the common law doctrine, the physician provides that pregnant woman with the following information: (1) A statement in writing providing the following information: (a) The name of the physician who will perform the abortion; (b) That the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being; (c) That the pregnant woman has an existing relationship with that unborn human being and that the relationship enjoys protection under the United States Constitution and under the laws of South Dakota; (d) That by having an abortion, her existing relationship and her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated…” [S.D. Codified Laws. §34-23A-10.2, accessed 6/24/24]

Physicians Were Required To Tell Patients Seeking An Abortion That The Procedure Results In An “Increased Risk Of Suicide Ideation And Suicide.” According to the South Dakota legislature, “(e) A description of all known medical risks of the procedure and statistically significant risk factors to which the pregnant woman would be subjected, including: (i) Depression and related psychological distress; (ii) Increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide;” [S.D. Codified Laws. §34-23A-10.2, accessed 6/24/24]

2005: Planned Parenthood v. Rounds Challenged The Constitutionality Of South Dakota House Bill 1166

2005: Planned Parenthood Challenged The Constitutionality Of South Dakota House Bill 1166 By Arguing That The Bill Interfered In The Doctor And Patient Relationship. According to a press release from Planned Parenthood, “Planned Parenthood challenged the law in federal district court to protect women in South Dakota who rely on Planned Parenthood for abortion services. The lawsuit was brought on a number of bases, including that it violates doctors’ and patients’ constitutional rights by interfering in the doctor/patient relationship.” [Planned Parenthood, 1/30/14]

The American Psychological Association Found That The Claim That First Trimester Abortions Cause Mental Health Problems Was Not Supported By Research. According to the American Psychological Association, “The case involves an appeal by the state of South Dakota of a trial court ruling striking down as unconstitutional a South Dakota statute that required physicians to warn women considering an abortion that suicide or suicidal ideation are known medical risks of abortion. In reaching that decision the trial court relied in part on the Report of the APA Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion which found after a comprehensive literature review that the research does not support a finding that an abortion in the first trimester causes mental health problems.” [American Psychological Association, 2010]

Colloton Voted To Reinstate The South Dakota Law, Including The Suicide Advisory, On The Basis That It Was Truthful And Non-Misleading

Colloton Voted To Reinstate The South Dakota Law, Including The Suicide Advisory, On The Basis That It Was Truthful And Non-Misleading. According to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit accessed via Justia, “COLLOTON, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. […] I concur in Part IV of the court’s opinion concerning why the required disclosure is truthful. I also concur in the portion of Part V that explains why the record before the district court did not establish that the disclosure is misleading.” [Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, 686 F.3d 889, accessed via Justia, 1/9/12]

In A 7-4 Vote, The South Dakota Law Was Allowed To Take Effect. According to a press release from Planned Parenthood, “In a 7-4 vote, the court, sitting en banc, vacated a lower court preliminary injunction, and allowed the South Dakota law to take effect.” [Planned Parenthood, 1/30/14]

Steven Colloton On Labor

Colloton Has A History Of Anti-Labor Rulings, Undermining Workplace And Consumer Protections

Colloton Voted To Vacate An $8.1 Million Award For Whistleblowers Who Exposed Corporate Fraud

The Eighth Circuit Vacated An $8.1 Million Award For Whistleblowers Who Exposed Corporate Fraud. According to Reuters, “A divided appeals court vacated an $8.1 [million] award giving two whistleblowers their share of a $48 million deal that Cisco Systems Inc and Comstor reached with the federal government to settle fraud allegations. In a 6-2 ruling Monday, an en banc panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the whistleblowers may not deserve the award because it’s unclear whether the False Claims Act charges resolved in the settlement were based on what the whistleblowers alleged.” [Reuters, 10/5/15]

Colloton Voted With The Majority To Vacate The Award. According to the Daily Beast, “Colloton, a former law clerk to Chief Justice Rehnquist, has a consistent pro-business, anti-labor, anti-civil-rights record as a judge. As the liberal group People for the American Way reported, he reversed an $8.1 million award to a whistleblower who exposed corporate fraud and reversed a $19 million judgment in a class action against Tyson Foods for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.” [Daily Beast, 4/11/17]

Colloton Reversed Two Class Action Judgments Against Tyson Foods For Violating The Fair Labor Standards Act

An Appeals Court Reversed Two Class Action Judgments Against Tyson Foods For Violating The Fair Labor Standards Act. According to Bloomberg Law, “Tyson Foods Inc. is off the hook for nearly $24 million previously awarded to workers at two Nebraska plants who alleged federal and state law wage violations, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled in two decisions Aug. 26 (Acosta v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2015 BL 274716, 8th Cir., 14-1582, 8/26/15; Gomez v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 8th Cir., 13-3500, 8/26/15).” [Bloomberg Law, 9/8/15]

Colloton Wrote That There Was Insufficient Evidence That Tyson Violated The Fair Labor Standards Act. According to Reuters, “Writing for a three-judge appeals court panel, Circuit Judge Steven Colloton found insufficient evidence of an agreement for Tyson to pay wages sought by the Madison workers, and no evidence of such an agreement for the Dakota City workers. He said the district court misinterpreted the Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act, which lets workers sue for unpaid wages. As a result, Colloton said the Tyson workers’ claims failed as a matter of law.” [Reuters, 8/26/15]

Colloton Was A Deciding Vote In Ruling That Racial Profiling And Harassment Of Customers Was Not An Interference With Their Right To Contract

In Gregory v. Dillard’s, Black Shoppers At A Department Store Claimed That They Were Surveilled Due To Their Race. According to Race, Racism and the Law, “In the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals case Gregory v. Dillard’s, black shoppers entering the Dillard’s retail store in Columbia, Missouri claimed that they were entering a different store than white shoppers. They entered a store where a special security code was often announced when they crossed the threshold, where store employees closely followed them, and where they were suspected of being shoplifters solely based on the color of their skin.” [Race, Racism and the Law, 1/18/13]

Colloton Ruled That If Racially Discriminatory Surveillance Or Harassment Did Not Prevent A Customer From Making A Purchase, The Retailer Did Not Violate Public Accommodation Laws. According to Outten & Golden LLP, “Defendant did not dispute for summary judgment purposes that the surveillance paractices were racially motivated.  Instead, it disputed that the customers entered a ‘contract’ with the store by shopping there.  Because the customers were not prevented from carrying out transactions by the store — for the most part, the plaintiffs left the store in disgust or frustration of their own accord — the district court held that no ‘contract’ was formed within the meaning of section 1981.  The original three-judge panel had substantially reversed that decision, with Judge Murphy writing for the majority, and Judge Colloton dissenting. The six-judge majority en banc affirms the decision below entirely. The majority opinion, signed this time by Judge Colloton, holds that to keep faith with the term ‘contract,’ some threshold beyond mere browsing through merchandise had to be met. To state a claim, a shopper ‘must show an attempt to purchase, involving a specific intent to purchase an item, and a step toward completing that purchase.’ And ‘[t]o the extent that the plaintiffs urge us to expand our interpretation of the statute . . . and to declare that a shopper need only enter a retail establishment to engage in protected activity under § 1981, we decline to do so.’” [Outten & Golden LLP – archived, 5/11/09]

Colloton Ruled That Public Employees Can Not Claim That They Were Retaliated Against For Their Political Speech

Colloton Ruled That Public Employees Could Not Claim That They Were Retaliated Against For Their Political Speech. According to the Daily Beast, “Colloton also ruled that police may use police dogs to bite and hold suspects, voted against a group of Native Americans in a Voting Rights Act case, and held that public employees should not be able to claim that they were retaliated against for their political speech.” [Daily Beast, 4/11/17]

Colloton Repeatedly Ruled Against Giving Employees The Opportunity To Prove In Court That Their Employers Retaliated Against Them For Filing Discrimination Claims

Colloton Repeatedly Ruled Against Giving Employees The Opportunity To Prove In Court That Their Employers Retaliated Against Them For Filing Discrimination Claims. According to People for the American Way, “In three separate cases, he dissented from decisions that employees should at least get the chance to prove in court that their employers retaliated against them for filing sex harassment, age discrimination, or other discrimination claims. In two more decisions, he argued in dissent that public employees should not have the opportunity to prove that they were retaliated against for speaking out in violation of their First Amendment rights.” [People for the American Way – archived, accessed 6/24/24]

Steven Colloton On Police Dogs

Colloton Dissented From A Ruling That Using Police Dogs To Bite And Hold Suspects Without Any Warning Was Unconstitutional

Colloton Dissented From A Ruling That Using Police Dogs To Bite And Hold Suspects Without Any Warning Was Unconstitutional

In Szabla v. City of Brooklyn Park, A Man Sleeping In A Public Park Was Bitten By A Police Dog With No Warning. According to Police1, “Officers responded to a traffic accident in which a single vehicle had driven into a tree. When officers arrived, they found the car unoccupied and requested that a K-9 respond to assist in trying to locate the driver. When the K-9 handler arrived, he saw a screwdriver and other property inside the vehicle. The K-9 handler believed the screwdriver was possibly used to commit a burglary and the property in the vehicle was stolen. The K-9 handler used a 15-foot leash and began a track for the driver through a park. No K-9 announcements were ever given. The K-9 led officers to a shelter inside the park. The K-9 then entered the shelter and bit Szabla, who was asleep. Szabla slept in the shelter because the park was across the street from a temporary employment service that hires day laborers. Szabla was an innocent person and not related to the traffic accident.” [Police1, 9/5/13]

A Court Ruled That The Defendant’s Fourth Amendment Rights Were Violated And A Warning About The Police Dog Must Be Given. According to Police1, “The court addressed the need for a canine warning announcement that would give a suspect the opportunity for peaceful surrender. The court concluded that a jury could properly find it unreasonable to use a police dog trained in the bite-and-hold method to track and bite a suspect, without first giving the suspect a warning and opportunity for peaceful surrender. The court further stated that at the time of this event (August 2000), case law specifying that not giving a warning to a suspect was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment has not been clearly established.” [Police1, 9/5/13]

Colloton Dissented In Part, Writing That There Was Insufficient Evidence That The City’s Policy On Police Dogs Were Inadequate. According to Colloton in United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, “In this case, the district court, noting that Szabla’s apprehension was an isolated incident, properly concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support a claim of inadequate training against the City, and the court does not suggest otherwise. There is likewise insufficient evidence to show an official policy to use police dogs to bite and hold suspects without warning. Therefore, I would affirm the judgment of the district court.” [CaseText, 3/18/05]